TECHNOLOGICAL COURTS AND SPEEDY JUSTICE
An article analysing the utility of the Information Technology for the speedy disposal of cases.
The very basic purpose for which every state machinery sets up the court system is to award justice to the victims of crimes. The constitution of India imposes heavy duty on the judicial system for providing legal mechanism to deal with problem relating to imparting justice. The setting up an independent judicial system, inclusion of fundamental rights and directive principles of state polices further shows the commitment of our constitution makers in making the judicial system an effective organ of state machinery on which people can rely with trust and hope of justice.
The technological development made by the human being in the field of science can be highly useful in realization of this objective. In last two decades, Information technology has brought many beneficial changes into our lives.And this tool of information technology can be equally useful in imparting justice.
The judicial response vis-à-vis information technology is not only positive but technology friendly also. The importance of Information technology has already been recognized by apex court in many cases.
In "M/S SIL Import, USA v M/S Exim Aides Silk Exporters" [1] the words "notice in writing", in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, were construed to include a notice by fax. The Supreme Court observed: "A notice envisaged u/s 138 can be sent by fax. Nowhere is it said that such notice must be sent by registered post or that it should be dispatched through a messenger. Chapter XVII of the Act, containing sections 138 to 142 was inserted in the Act as per Banking Public Financial Institution and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988.Technological advancements like Fax, Internet, E-mail, etc were on swift progress even before the Bill for the Amendment Act was discussed by the Parliament. When the legislature contemplated that notice in writing should be given to the drawer of the cheque, the legislature must be presumed to have been aware of the modern devices and equipments already in vogue and also in store for future. If the court were to interpret the words "giving notice in writing" in the section as restricted to the customary mode of sending notice through postal service or even by personal delivery, the interpretative process will fail to cope up with the change of time. So if the notice envisaged in clause (b) of the proviso to section 138 was transmitted by Fax, it would be compliance with the legal requirement".
Thus the requirement of a written notice will be satisfied if the same is given in the form of a fax, e-mail etc, using the information technology. It must be noted that a notice by e-mail can be send instantaneously and its delivery is assured and acknowledged by a report showing the due delivery of the same to the recipient. This method is more safe, accurate, economical and lesser time consuming as compared to its traditional counterpart, popularly known as "Registered A.D".
In "Basavaraj R. Patil v State of Karnataka" [2] the question was whether an accused need to be physically present in court to answer the questions put to him by the court whilst recording his statement under section 313. The majority held that the section had to be considered in the light of the revolutionary changes in technology of communication and transmission and the marked improvement in the facilities of legal aid in the country. It was held that it was not necessary that in all cases the accused must answer by personally remaining present in the court. Once again, the importance of information technology is apparent. If a person residing in a remote area of South India is required to appear in the court for giving evidence, then he should not be called from that place, instead the medium of "video conferencing" should be used. In that case the requirements of justice are practically harmonized with the ease and comfort of the witnesses, which can drastically improve the justice delivery system.
In "State of Maharashtra v Dr.Praful.B.Desai " [3] the Supreme Court observed: "The evidence can be both oral and documentary and electronic records can be produced as evidence. This means that evidence, even in criminal matters, can also be by way of electronic records. This would include video conferencing. Video conferencing is an advancement in science and technology which permits one to see, hear and talk with someone far away, with the same facility and ease as if he is present before you i.e. in your presence. Thus, it is clear that so long as the accused and/or his pleader are present when evidence is recorded by video conferencing that evidence is recorded in the "presence" of the accused and would thus fully meet the requirements of section 273, Criminal Procedure Code. Recording of such evidence would be as per "procedure established by law". The advancement of science and technology is such that now it is possible to set up video conferencing equipments in the court itself. In that case evidence would be recorded by the magistrate or under his dictation in the open court. To this method there is however a drawback. As the witness is not in the court there may be difficulties if commits contempt of court or perjures himself. Therefore as a matter of prudence evidence by video conferencing in open court should be only if the witness is in a country which has an extradition treaty with India and under whose laws contempt of court and perjury are also punishable".
Once again the safety of victims and the witnesses through the use of information technology was recognized by the Supreme Court in "Sakshi v U.O.I" [4] The Supreme Court in this case observed: " The whole inquiry before a court being to elicit the truth, it is absolutely necessary that the victim or the witnesses are able to depose about the entire incident in a free atmosphere without any embarrassment. Section 273 Cr.P.C merely requires the evidence to be taken in the presence of the accused. The section, however, does not say that the evidence should be recorded in such a manner that the accused should have full view of the victim or the witnesses. Recording of evidence by video conferencing has already been upheld. Moreover, there is a major difference between substantive provisions defining crimes and providing punishment for the same and procedural enactment laying down the procedure of trial of such offences. Rules of procedure are handmaiden of justice and are meant to advance and not to obstruct the cause of justice. It is, therefore, permissible for the court to expand or enlarge the meanings of such provisions in order to elicit the truth and do justice with the parties. Thus, in holding trial of child sex abuse or rape a screen or some arrangements may be made where the victim or witness (who may be equally vulnerable like the victim) do not see the body or face of the accused. Recording of evidence by way of video conferencing vis-à-vis Section 273 Cr.P.C is permissible".
The above case law shows that the judiciary in India is not only aware of the advantages of information technology but is actively and positively using it in the administration of justice, particularly the criminal justice.[5]
Once again it got proved that fast track justice is the need of hour specially in the rape cases.And this time, fast track court established by Chief Judicial Magistrate court of jodhpur to conduct the expeditious trial in the rape case of a German tourist by two auto rickshaw drivers became the medium of this fast justice. This judgement further shows the sincerity of our judical system in making justice available to the poor victims as early as possible so that the victim do not undergo the same physical as well mental trauma of that unforgettable criminal torture in the name of getting justice.Judgement delivered by the Additional District Judge Jodhpur is considered to be one of the quickest court verdicts. The fast track court delivered it in just 20 days and on June 1 it awarded sentence of life imprisonment to the two accused. It is not only the verdict of the court in this case which is being welcomed by thinkers , it is more the less time taken by the court in arriving at the judgement which is being applaused by all. Today, when more and more rape victims are daring to come forward to report the heinous crime commited upon them.This practice of delivering quick judgement if taken seriously will not only strengthen their faith in the judicial system but will also help them in coming out of the trauma of being a rape victim as it ensures to them their fundamental right to speedy trial. To make this practice of fast track justice a happening reality , not only the consensus should be generated among the general public in favour of setting up of such more fast track courts but the state machinery should also make financial arrangements for such a useful mechanism of delivering justice more quickly. [6]
© Geeta Narula. All rights reserved with the author.
* Advocate, Delhi High Court
Contact at: advocategeeta@yahoo.com /
advocategeeta@rediffmail.com
[1] AIR 1999 SC 1609.
[2] (2000) 8 SCC 740.
[3] 2003 (3) SCALE 554.
[4] (2004) 5 SCC 519.
[5] Dalal Praveen at http://perry4law.blogspot.com/2005/05/justice-through-electronic-governance.html
[6] Narula; Geeta at http://www.india.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/210607.shtml
The very basic purpose for which every state machinery sets up the court system is to award justice to the victims of crimes. The constitution of India imposes heavy duty on the judicial system for providing legal mechanism to deal with problem relating to imparting justice. The setting up an independent judicial system, inclusion of fundamental rights and directive principles of state polices further shows the commitment of our constitution makers in making the judicial system an effective organ of state machinery on which people can rely with trust and hope of justice.
The technological development made by the human being in the field of science can be highly useful in realization of this objective. In last two decades, Information technology has brought many beneficial changes into our lives.And this tool of information technology can be equally useful in imparting justice.
The judicial response vis-à-vis information technology is not only positive but technology friendly also. The importance of Information technology has already been recognized by apex court in many cases.
In "M/S SIL Import, USA v M/S Exim Aides Silk Exporters" [1] the words "notice in writing", in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, were construed to include a notice by fax. The Supreme Court observed: "A notice envisaged u/s 138 can be sent by fax. Nowhere is it said that such notice must be sent by registered post or that it should be dispatched through a messenger. Chapter XVII of the Act, containing sections 138 to 142 was inserted in the Act as per Banking Public Financial Institution and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988.Technological advancements like Fax, Internet, E-mail, etc were on swift progress even before the Bill for the Amendment Act was discussed by the Parliament. When the legislature contemplated that notice in writing should be given to the drawer of the cheque, the legislature must be presumed to have been aware of the modern devices and equipments already in vogue and also in store for future. If the court were to interpret the words "giving notice in writing" in the section as restricted to the customary mode of sending notice through postal service or even by personal delivery, the interpretative process will fail to cope up with the change of time. So if the notice envisaged in clause (b) of the proviso to section 138 was transmitted by Fax, it would be compliance with the legal requirement".
Thus the requirement of a written notice will be satisfied if the same is given in the form of a fax, e-mail etc, using the information technology. It must be noted that a notice by e-mail can be send instantaneously and its delivery is assured and acknowledged by a report showing the due delivery of the same to the recipient. This method is more safe, accurate, economical and lesser time consuming as compared to its traditional counterpart, popularly known as "Registered A.D".
In "Basavaraj R. Patil v State of Karnataka" [2] the question was whether an accused need to be physically present in court to answer the questions put to him by the court whilst recording his statement under section 313. The majority held that the section had to be considered in the light of the revolutionary changes in technology of communication and transmission and the marked improvement in the facilities of legal aid in the country. It was held that it was not necessary that in all cases the accused must answer by personally remaining present in the court. Once again, the importance of information technology is apparent. If a person residing in a remote area of South India is required to appear in the court for giving evidence, then he should not be called from that place, instead the medium of "video conferencing" should be used. In that case the requirements of justice are practically harmonized with the ease and comfort of the witnesses, which can drastically improve the justice delivery system.
In "State of Maharashtra v Dr.Praful.B.Desai " [3] the Supreme Court observed: "The evidence can be both oral and documentary and electronic records can be produced as evidence. This means that evidence, even in criminal matters, can also be by way of electronic records. This would include video conferencing. Video conferencing is an advancement in science and technology which permits one to see, hear and talk with someone far away, with the same facility and ease as if he is present before you i.e. in your presence. Thus, it is clear that so long as the accused and/or his pleader are present when evidence is recorded by video conferencing that evidence is recorded in the "presence" of the accused and would thus fully meet the requirements of section 273, Criminal Procedure Code. Recording of such evidence would be as per "procedure established by law". The advancement of science and technology is such that now it is possible to set up video conferencing equipments in the court itself. In that case evidence would be recorded by the magistrate or under his dictation in the open court. To this method there is however a drawback. As the witness is not in the court there may be difficulties if commits contempt of court or perjures himself. Therefore as a matter of prudence evidence by video conferencing in open court should be only if the witness is in a country which has an extradition treaty with India and under whose laws contempt of court and perjury are also punishable".
Once again the safety of victims and the witnesses through the use of information technology was recognized by the Supreme Court in "Sakshi v U.O.I" [4] The Supreme Court in this case observed: " The whole inquiry before a court being to elicit the truth, it is absolutely necessary that the victim or the witnesses are able to depose about the entire incident in a free atmosphere without any embarrassment. Section 273 Cr.P.C merely requires the evidence to be taken in the presence of the accused. The section, however, does not say that the evidence should be recorded in such a manner that the accused should have full view of the victim or the witnesses. Recording of evidence by video conferencing has already been upheld. Moreover, there is a major difference between substantive provisions defining crimes and providing punishment for the same and procedural enactment laying down the procedure of trial of such offences. Rules of procedure are handmaiden of justice and are meant to advance and not to obstruct the cause of justice. It is, therefore, permissible for the court to expand or enlarge the meanings of such provisions in order to elicit the truth and do justice with the parties. Thus, in holding trial of child sex abuse or rape a screen or some arrangements may be made where the victim or witness (who may be equally vulnerable like the victim) do not see the body or face of the accused. Recording of evidence by way of video conferencing vis-à-vis Section 273 Cr.P.C is permissible".
The above case law shows that the judiciary in India is not only aware of the advantages of information technology but is actively and positively using it in the administration of justice, particularly the criminal justice.[5]
Once again it got proved that fast track justice is the need of hour specially in the rape cases.And this time, fast track court established by Chief Judicial Magistrate court of jodhpur to conduct the expeditious trial in the rape case of a German tourist by two auto rickshaw drivers became the medium of this fast justice. This judgement further shows the sincerity of our judical system in making justice available to the poor victims as early as possible so that the victim do not undergo the same physical as well mental trauma of that unforgettable criminal torture in the name of getting justice.Judgement delivered by the Additional District Judge Jodhpur is considered to be one of the quickest court verdicts. The fast track court delivered it in just 20 days and on June 1 it awarded sentence of life imprisonment to the two accused. It is not only the verdict of the court in this case which is being welcomed by thinkers , it is more the less time taken by the court in arriving at the judgement which is being applaused by all. Today, when more and more rape victims are daring to come forward to report the heinous crime commited upon them.This practice of delivering quick judgement if taken seriously will not only strengthen their faith in the judicial system but will also help them in coming out of the trauma of being a rape victim as it ensures to them their fundamental right to speedy trial. To make this practice of fast track justice a happening reality , not only the consensus should be generated among the general public in favour of setting up of such more fast track courts but the state machinery should also make financial arrangements for such a useful mechanism of delivering justice more quickly. [6]
© Geeta Narula. All rights reserved with the author.
* Advocate, Delhi High Court
Contact at: advocategeeta@yahoo.com /
advocategeeta@rediffmail.com
[1] AIR 1999 SC 1609.
[2] (2000) 8 SCC 740.
[3] 2003 (3) SCALE 554.
[4] (2004) 5 SCC 519.
[5] Dalal Praveen at http://perry4law.blogspot.com/2005/05/justice-through-electronic-governance.html
[6] Narula; Geeta at http://www.india.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/210607.shtml
posted by GEETA NARULA | 10:27 AM
|
0 comments
